2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On August 1, 2007, the Plaintiff leased a lease deposit of KRW 30 million, KRW 140,000,000,000 for rent, KRW 140,000,000 for rent, and the lease term of August 29, 2009 at the same place, among the commercial buildings on the D’s ground, which are owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. On October 2, 2008, the Defendant purchased the instant store from C, and acquired its ownership. Around June 23, 2009, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content stating that the lease contract for the instant store is renewed at KRW 1.6 million each month after August 30, 2009, and the Plaintiff received the certificate of content on the business.

C. Nevertheless, from September 2009 to October 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1.5 million monthly rent to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant also issued a tax invoice for KRW 1.5 million per month of rent paid by the Plaintiff.

On October 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the lease agreement for the instant store. On October 31, 201, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with respect to the instant store E and the instant store at KRW 30 million and KRW 1.7 million per month.

E. On November 8, 2011, the Plaintiff prepared a receipt with the purport that the Plaintiff was refunded KRW 30 million to the Defendant for the instant store. On the same day, the Defendant deposited KRW 24.95 million with the remainder of the lease deposit after deducting the rent deposited by the Plaintiff’s bank account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would raise the rent in KRW 1.6 million at the time of the renewal of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the rent in KRW 1.5 million for two years and three months until the termination of the lease agreement, and the Defendant also issued the tax invoice for the said rent. As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were the same.